Introductory note: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently issued what he described as the “first national guidelines” on school discipline. Mr. Duncan is as well-equipped in this area as any education expert, given that he skipped directly from Australian professional basketball to a career in education leadership and therefore shares with most experts the essential qualification that he’s never been a teacher and never worked in a school.

Mr. Duncan specifically condemned “zero tolerance policies,” school suspensions, and removing disruptive students from class. Before we address his guidelines, here’s a review of “zero tolerance” and what he and others consider “tough discipline.”

———

Poor Elijah’s cousin counseled her ten-year-old not to vault off the couch. This was immediately before he vaulted off the couch.

Zero tolerance more specifically means that certain actions are without exception unacceptable, and that no mitigating circumstances will excuse those actions or cancel the consequences. The term dates back to a 1994 federal law, which required schools to expel students who brought firearms to school.

With nearly everybody bemoaning the sad state of school discipline, a firm, consistent response to misbehavior should be popular. But both versions of zero tolerance have always had critics.

Some maintain that school officials, like judges, need to be free to exercise discretion when they’re meting out penalties, even in extreme cases. They have a point. The purpose of any legal system, from the Supreme Court to the principal’s office, is to interpret and apply general laws in specific circumstances. For example, it’s illegal to drive too fast, but no court fines a fire truck for speeding to a fire. In the same way, running in the hall is against the rules, but no school issues a detention if you’re running for the nurse because your friend got hurt. Provocation, motive, and the gravity of the act need to factor into any judge’s decision.

Critics also complain about extreme and inappropriate responses. Zero tolerance is why shortly after September 11 police arrested a man who’d forgotten his camera for running backwards down an airport escalator. It’s why officials suspended a first grader for “sexual harassment” when he kissed a classmate on the cheek. It’s why a student was suspended when she shared her Midol with a friend. It’s why a Boy Scout knife in your pocket can land you in front of the school board.

We’re afraid, afraid of sexual assaults, afraid of drugs, afraid of violence, and afraid of lawsuits. And we’ve got good reason. Of course, not long ago the ACLU’s president declared that schools’ fears of being sued are “overblown.” He doubtless made this comment in between filing lawsuits.

It’s reasonable to argue that schools need flexibility to exercise judicial discretion based on the specifics of the offense. But critics commonly ignore the conditions that prompt schools to overreact.

Some experts bizarrely claim that zero tolerance is “inherently unfair” because “it treats all children the same.” They compare offenders who disrupt class and hurt other students to students who have trouble with math. Students who can’t figure out long division get extra help. Therefore, these advocates argue, students who can’t behave shouldn’t be held to the same behavior standard. One expert equates “zero tolerance” with “intolerance” and asks if that’s “what we’re trying to teach our children.”

I hope my students learn a respectful tolerance toward other races and religions. But I don’t expect them to tolerate injury, abuse, or chronic disruption. I don’t expect them to tolerate having their education stolen from them.

Yes, we need flexibility and common sense. It’s illegal and dangerous for students to dispense drugs. But lending your friend two contraband aspirin isn’t the same as selling heroin out of your locker. Any discipline policy that doesn’t recognize that difference is flawed, no matter what you call it.

On the other hand, it’s a dereliction to tolerate repeated misconduct in the name of “flexibility” and “best practice.”

If a student disrupts learning, torments another student, uses drugs, or brings a gun to school, it’s wrong to impose him on his classmates based on his academic standing, the touchdowns he scored, his home life, or his ethnicity. It’s altogether insane to serially re-impose him because he’s made a career of disruption, torment, defiance, and violence.

That “guideline” is more criminal than the crimes themselves.

We need to be intolerant of students’ bad behavior.

Unless we want our children to live with it each day.

Next time: Secretary Duncan meets Officer Krupke.

Peter Berger teaches English in Weathersfield, Vermont. Poor Elijah would be pleased to answer letters addressed to him in care of the editor.